A Methodology for Written and Oral Presentation

of Research Results
Sanida Omerovic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
mail: [email protected]
Saso Tomazic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
mail: [email protected]
Milan Milutinovic, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, USA
mail: [email protected]
Veljko Milutinovic, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Serbia
mail: [email protected]

Abstract — The purpose of the methodology described in this paper is to highlight an

effective method for the organization of research results into written and oral forms.

Authorities within supervising universities have realized that strong research by a

candidate is often obscured by poor presentation, leading to the paper being ignored by

the research community and journal reviewers. On the basis of their academic

background, the authors of this paper decided to form a set of clear guidelines for

writing research papers and giving oral presentations aimed at helping PhD students.

To support the effectiveness of the methodology proposed, a statistical analysis has

been conducted. The methodology described in this paper was initially intended for use

in the fields of computer engineering; however, it is applicable more widely. In

conclusion, if the methodology reported in this paper is followed strictly, it is much less

likely that a good piece of work would be rejected for publication, and/or remain

anonymous, due to inadequate presentation.

Index Terms—methodology, research, PhD, structure, presentation.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the methodology described in this paper is to help PhD students to produce

good papers and effective oral presentations. The underlying assumption is that good

research is mainly concerned with producing high-quality research results. However,

high-quality research results are often times not the only prerequisite for meeting the

requirements for a PhD. Normally the candidate has also to publish a paper in a

recognized leading international journal (e.g., SCI journal (Scientific Thompson 2009)).

At the same time, no formal education is offered by universities on how to write papers

for SCI journals.

The major goal of the methodology described here is to help candidates to produce

papers with a high probability of acceptance by leading international journals, so that

high quality research results become accessible to a world wide audience (our work

relates to problem-solving papers). Oral presentations are also given due attention,

since each thesis has to be presented orally at conferences, oral defenses, etc.

Therefore, this paper is divided into two parts: the first stressing the writing of a

research paper and the second stressing its oral presentation.

The proposed structure for the delivery of research results focuses on the

following issues:

a) activities before writing a paper

b) selection of a title

c) writing the abstract

d) use of references

e) the structure of tables and figures

f) the structure of the paper, and

g) oral presentation.

This paper combines the key elements from (Milutinovic 1996) and (Milutinovic

1997), expanded with the most recent experiences of the authors. Our work presented

here is influenced significantly by the work of others (Cohen et al. 1982)(Falkovych et al.

2006)(Fowler 2002)(Jones 1999)(Scheurich 1997)(Kotz et al. 2005)(Jarvinen 2000).The

main ideas of this work were built on a set of a highly quoted papers related to changes

in educational methodologies (Latchman et al. 1999)(Lee et al. 1998)(Turns et al. 2000)

(Milutinovic 2006), and PowerPoint results presentation enhancements (Tufte 2003)

(Doumont 2005)(Alley et al. 2005)(Farkas 2006). We also find work treating creativity

and related phenomena (Milutinovic et al. 2008)(Milutnovic 2005)(Pearl 2007)(Friedman

2008) to be relevant. All references listed are of high value, and our only criticism is

related to the fact that: (a) none are tailored to the specific problem of generating papers

for leading international journals and (b) none are related to a specific course teaching

the subject methodically. However, some efforts are visible in that direction (Wong

2008a)(Wong 2008b)(Day 1977), and our paper complements them.

The rationale for the proposed methodology is that poorly presented research

results may be overlooked or rejected, as key findings may not be quickly and properly

understood. A standard structure for presenting research permits the reviewers and the

audience to comprehend the key points quickly and with minimal effort.

ACTIVITIES BEFORE WRITING A PAPER

Before writing a paper, PhD candidate with his/her advisor should decide which

journal will be targeted for submitting research results. The PhD advisor should point
out the most relevant publications. Also, the candidate can search through the SCI

expanded database (Scientific Thompson 2009) for an appropriate journal. The choice

of appropriate journal is important because of the amount of detail allowed in the

methods section of the paper, the acceptable length of the entire manuscript, the scope

of the journal, and the targeted audience. All these issues are usually defined on a

journal’s web page, under Guidelines for Authors.

Once the target journal is selected, preparations for writing the paper can

begin. However, the processes of “writing” and “working” is often iterative, with these

two processes supporting, challenging, and reinforcing each other. One can write a

draft, revise it, and after the submission and review processes, one can again return to

the draft and improve it.

SELECTION OF A TITLE

A title is often the first thing a reader will see when considering a technical work. It is a

powerful tool for drawing the readers’ attention to a paper.

The main goal of a good title is an accurate and efficient communication of the

essence of the paper. It should accurately describe the research done and get the

reader interested in the subject. The title should enable an expert reader to understand

the basic idea of the work, even without reading the paper or seeing the presentation. It

should also provoke the reader to think about the deeper issues involved in the topic of

the presentation.

An example of a title that fulfills these requirements is: “Cross-layer Control in

Wireless and Satellite Networks: Scheduling, Routing, and Power Allocation”. This title
clearly states the subject of the paper and gets the reader thinking about some of the

issues involved.

WRITING THE ABSTRACT

A research abstract should be compact and informative. The language should be

simple, direct, and precise. Whenever possible, it should include the following

components:

a) a problem statement of the research to be described;

b) a brief explanation of the existing solutions and their weaknesses, in relation to the

problem statement;

c) the essence of the suggested solution, and why it is expected to be better under the

same circumstances;

d) the type of analysis performed to demonstrate that the suggested solution is better

than existing approaches, in terms of performance and complexity (for engineers,

performance and complexity are equally important);

e) the major numerical highlights of the analysis and research results (for engineers,

numbers are essential).

The most critical element of an abstract, from the reader point of view, is the

main conclusion of the work. Many abstracts – by professionals and by students – are

poorly written (e.g. descriptive rather than informative) and if the conclusions of the work

are omitted, then the abstract fails in its major purpose: to be a miniaturized version of

the paper.
USE OF REFERENCES

The list of references should be completed before the actual writing of the paper begins.

This ensures that no important reference is left out.

According to (Batchman 2008): "If you have no references, it usually raises

concerns with the reviewers, because the message you are giving them is that either

you are unaware of anyone else working in the area, or you don't feel anyone else has

done any work of significance. Second, authors should not just include a large number

of related papers that really do not support their paper. Including the additional

'references' just makes it look like you are trying to impress the reviewer with your

knowledge." Basically, the unrelated papers should not be included, because authors

should not waste a reader’s time in searching for unrelated or irrelevant papers. The

real challenge of referencing is as an abbreviated or short form of communication of

what has been done previously, to say only what is essential to bring the reader and

reviewer to an understanding of the essentials of the new work in the current paper, and

to properly acknowledge sources.

For the syntax of the references, follow the example of the most prestigious

journal in the field of the research being discussed, unless otherwise required explicitly.

When pointing to a reference in the body of the paper itself, the approach using the full

name of the first author and the year of publication is easiest for the reader, since it

quickly conveys the research group from which the paper comes. These full-name

references can be easily converted to numerical references, as required by some

technical journals.
THE STRUCTURE OF TABLES AND FIGURES

All figures and figure details should be completed before the writing of the paper starts.

The figures should contain as little text as possible; instead, they should include only

commonly used mnemonics or acronyms that are independent of the language in which

the paper is written. This approach is helpful when figures need to be transported back

and forth between different languages.

For all figures and tables, captions should contain all information necessary to

understand and interpret them. Whenever possible, reading the details of the figures

should substitute for a casual hearing or rough reading of the paper or presentation

itself. To that end, figure captions should contain five important elements:

a) a title which shows the main highlight(s);

b) a legend which explains the mnemonics in the figure itself;

c) descriptions of attention-deserving phenomena in the figure (e.g., fourth quarter 3G

mobile penetration was 10% higher than in the third quarter);

d) explanations of the reasons behind the attention-deserving phenomena (e.g., the

fourth quarter penetration was higher due to the introduction of new services);

e) implications of these phenomena (e.g., if higher 3G penetration is desired, new

services requiring high-speed data access must be introduced). By stating

implications of the phenomena, we do not mean to compress a summarized version

(of the paper) into a figure caption, but to give the reader an opportunity to get the

bird’s eye view of the paper, without having to read the entire paper.

The last element is of special importance, because it shows the candidate's

ability to interpret data and produce new scientific knowledge.

 All of these details should be clearly visible to the viewer. Keep in mind that

figures are often moved from written papers to presentation slides and back, and that

this should be achievable with minimal effort (appropriate modifications are always

needed when moving figures between papers and slides). See Appendix 2 for a

statistical analysis of the effectiveness of figure captions.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER

Whenever possible, an author should first develop the skeleton of the paper, to include

sections related to the following issues:

a) an introduction, to include the basic facts needed to attune the reader to the

subject, and to explain the point of view of the author’s research;

b) a problem statement, to convey the importance and exact definition of the problem

the research is addressing;

c) existing solutions and criticism of them, to show the relevant major solutions and

indicate their inadequacies (from the point of view of the author's research), all with

reference to the problem statement;

d) conditions and assumptions of the research to follow, to summarize the

environment of interest; the specific requirements of the real environment

(conditions), and the elements that simplify the analysis without any negative impact

on the validity and representativeness of the final results (assumptions), should be

clarified and itemized (e.g., application, system software, architecture, organization,

design, and technology);

e) the proposed solution and its advantages, to give the essence of the proposed

solution (the idea which is to be introduced), followed by a logical and/or

 philosophical discussion about expected benefits stemming from the idea;

f) mathematical modeling and analysis, to show one or more of the following:

(f1) establishment of an appropriate mathematical model, according to the pre-

specified conditions and assumptions,

(f2) a validity proof of the major idea,

(f3) a calculation of initial values for simulations to follow,

(f4) an estimate of performance,

(f5) an estimate of complexity,

(f6) other relevant analysis.

Note that modeling and analysis is helpful to both reader and researcher in aiding

understanding of the concept, but will usually not provide final answers related to

performance and complexity;

g) simulations, to show performance (usually the major and the longest part of the

paper);

h) implementation or implementation-oriented issues, to show complexity, reliability,

availability, and other properties (in some research, this may be the major and the

longest part of the paper);

i) the conclusion, with the following three main elements:

(i1) revisiting the major contribution from the performance/complexity point of

view,

(i2) stating who will benefit from the presented results,

(i3) highlighting freshly discovered problems and defining possible future

research avenues.
 One should keep in mind that some readers will read only the abstract and the

conclusion;

j) references, as discussed in a previous section.

The proposed structure should be used as a guideline for writing papers, rather

than a rigid structure to be followed literally. Suggested sections should be inserted only

when applicable.

Appropriate section headings should be formed following the guidelines for

selecting the paper title. After the skeleton on the level of first-level headings is defined,

the author should develop the skeleton at the paragraph level; this means defining all

subheadings on lower levels and the contents of all paragraphs under each lowest-level

heading.

Specifying the first (and therefore the major) sentence of each paragraph leads

to the strategy of a senior person (e.g., the advisor) developing the skeleton, while a

junior person (e.g., the PhD student) does the actual writing of the paper. The

proceeding sentences of the paragraph are used to explain and/or justify the statement

conveyed by the first sentence. Consequently, after the paper is written, advisor

comments are restricted to the paragraph level and are thus easier to locate and

correct.

In order to emphasize the paper's main idea, details that are unnecessary for

understanding the essence of the idea should be omitted from the main body of the

paper. If some details are required for implementation purposes (for example, if the

reader is expected to be able to repeat the experiments), they should be moved into

appendices that are referred to at appropriate locations in the main text.

 See Appendix 3 for a statistical analysis of effectiveness of paper structures.

Remember, this paper promotes the model in which one first does the work, and then

writes it up. Note that, after one has seen what one had written, one may decide to do

some extra work, followed by extra writing, so the process becomes iterative.

ORAL PRESENTATION

Oral presentation is of great importance for conference presentations (usually preceding

the journal submission) and PhD thesis defense.

When making slides for an oral presentation, there are several points worth

keeping in mind:

a) The title slide should include the presentation title, the name(s) of author(s),

affiliations, and all relevant contact data.

b) Presentations should begin with an introductory slide to give the audience the basic

ideas of the presentation.

c) When introducing a research presentation, the approach is similar to writing an

abstract. The introductory slide should feature a brief outline of the detail of the talk

itself.

d) Remember that research problems are also logic problems and have to be

presented in a manner that states the underlying logic explicitly.

e) Presentation should follow the presentation structure outlined earlier in this paper.

f) Semantic-line splitting aids understanding – and is best done manually, rather than

automatically by a word processor.

g) The aesthetics and layout of each slide is important.

h) The presentation should conclude with another "short and effective" slide.
 The content of presentation slides above are taken from lecture notes of the

course on the proposed methodology presented at the University of Belgrade, Serbia

and the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Details of the course are outlined in Appendix

1, and on the web page of our laboratory (Omerovic et al. 2009).

Semantic line-splitting is an important element of a presentation that makes it

easier for the audience to remember the key ideas of a slide. In any instance where

bulleted text in a slide must be spread over more than one line, each line should present

a different thought. In situations where a line seems impossible to split semantically, re-

stating the line using alternative wording will often result in a text that is much easier to

understand and split semantically.

One of the authors of this paper performed an experiment to prove the

effectiveness of splitting lines in this way. He taught the same subject to two different

groups of students, using two sets of slides, one with semantic line-splitting and one

without. A test was given to both groups after the subject was completed. After

performing this experiment several times, he noted that test results were significantly

higher for the students who were exposed to slides that featured the semantically split

lines. See Appendix 4 for details.

CONCLUSION

Following the guidelines set out in this paper (for organizing research papers and oral

presentations) will lead to improved performance in communication, because the

research content and the research results will be more effectively communicated to the

audience. Consequently, a paper presenting valuable research results is less likely to

be rejected for publication, or if published, is less likely to be ignored by the research

community. This paper is most useful to Ph.D. students, but it can be of benefit to all

those who have to present their thoughts, in either written or oral forms. Finally, this

paper opens a number of new research avenues, mostly those leading to statistical

analysis which can shed more numerical light on the issues and advice presented here.

APPENDIX 1: OUTLINE OF A COURSE ON THE METHODOLOGY FOR WRITTEN AND ORAL

PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS

This course was held for postgraduate students at University of Belgrade, Serbia and

University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. The rational for the course was that postgraduate

engineers are very well skilled when it comes to obtaining research results (by doing

formal analysis, simulations, and implementations), but that they are lacking

presentation methodology for writing and presenting research results.

This course’s outline includes the following: (a) weekly schedule, (b) reading

assignments, (c) creation of the final deliverable (a paper to be submitted to an SCI

journal), and (d) professor-student interaction.

The weekly schedule comprises the following:

 three weeks of lectures on methodology issues; at the end of this course section,

each student has to summarize his or her PhD thesis work into the ten points from

section THE STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER,

 three weeks related to the analysis of the seminal work of others, projected onto the

same ten points as indicated in section THE STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER, and

 six weeks related to the analysis of papers and presentations generated by students

attending the course.

 Reading assignments include the references listed in this paper; also, each

student is expected to locate and present one outstanding paper from his or her thesis

research, identifying the ten points indicated in section THE STRUCTURE OF THE

PAPER.

The creation of the final deliverable is a process which progresses during the

last six weeks of the course, with students (as well as the professor) reading sections of

each candidate paper to be submitted to an SCI journal.

Professor-student interaction is performed in three phases: (a) discussing the

ten points of each students' PhD thesis, (b) evaluating the students' presentations

(based on the same ten points) of the seminal research of others, and (c) evaluating the

students' presentations (based on the same ten points) of their own work.

Some of the postgraduate students who have attended the course at the

University of Belgrade managed to publish papers in leading international journals

(Radivojevic et al. 2004)(Milutinovic et al. 2003). Of course, attending the course itself is

not enough to publish a paper. The most important issue is that the idea of the PhD

candidate is proven to be original, and that it gives better results than existing solutions.

Besides presentation methodology, postgraduate students are also taught through

examples from practice (Rudan et al. 2005), to enhance their creativity and to

materialize abstract ideas into practice.

Another benefit of publishing a paper in a leading international journal (besides,

it sometimes being a prerequisite for obtaining a PhD degree) is that research done

becomes available to a wide research audience, and consequently new research

opportunities may arise (student exchange, invited lectures, joint EU projects, industry
applications, etc).

Some of the postgraduate students attending the course at the University of

Belgrade, Serbia, had an opportunity (based on their research) to attend student

exchange programs in the Supercomputing Centre of the University of Barcelona,

Spain, University of Siena, Italy; to give invited lectures at the Fraunhofer Institute,

Germany, University of Valencia, Spain; to attend specialized conferences like HiPeac,

Sweden; and to join industry projects like Dow Jones, USA, StorageTech, USA, and EU

FP 6 and FP 7 projects like WeGo or ProSense.

APPENDIX 2: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FIGURE CAPTIONS

A group of 108 students (divided into two groups, 56 and 52) was exposed to two

different versions of the same paper (the test was performed in the morning hours). In

one case, the paper included only one-line figure captions (title only). In the other case,

the same paper included carefully written figure captions based on the methodology

proposed in this work. Students were given one hour to read the paper and were then

given a test with ten questions. On average, those exposed to the full five-element

captions scored 83%, and the others scored 71% (the lower bound was 43% versus

32%, and the upper bound was 100% versus 96%).

In a following student group, the same test was performed in evening hours,

when students are relatively tired. In our context, the term "evening" meant "after many

hours of attending classes" (when concentration goes down) and not "at the time of the

day when students have difficulties accepting new facts”. In the latter case, some of the

students, the so called "owl types," have, in fact, better concentration. The scores were

79% and 64% respectively (the lower bound was 39% versus 29%, and the upper
bound was 98% versus 91%). This is also an indication that the proposed approach

gives a higher relative advantage in more difficult teaching circumstances.

APPENDIX 3: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PAPER STRUCTURES

In 24 different cases of oral thesis defense (MSc or PhD), when the 10-element

structure was reinforced, students were able fairly crispy and precisely to answer the

following questions:

a) what is the problem addressed by the thesis?

b) what is the best solution in the open literature and what are its drawback from the

point of view of the subject research?

c) what is the essence of the proposed approach, and why is it supposed to be better?

In the alternative case of 41 different oral defenses (by other major professors,

who did not reinforce, for whatever reason, the above-mentioned 10-element structure,

the answers to the questions above were relatively ambiguous and fuzzy. Since issues

like "crisp" and "fuzzy" cannot be treated numerically, when a question was asked in

these cases, it was underlined that an answer should be given in one sentence, and the

number of sentences in the answer was used as an indication of how "crisp" or "fuzzy" it

was.

When the structure proposed in this paper was reinforced (24 cases), the

essence was answered in one sentence 88% of the time (88% of 72 questions). In the

alternative group (41 cases) the essence was answered in one sentence only 32% of

the time (32% of 123 questions).

The results presented above demonstrate that the existence of the structure

brings greater presentation success.

 In this appendix and in the previous two, the term "statistical analysis" should be

taken conditionally, bearing in mind the size of the pattern and the nature of the

circumstances.

APPENDIX 4: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SEMANTIC LINE-SPLITTING

A group of 102 students was exposed (during the morning hours of the same day) to

teaching of the same subject matter, in 2 different classrooms (52 in one classroom, 50

in another classroom). In the first case, the subject matter was presented using slides

based on line-splitting forced by a word processor (i.e., no semantic splitting, except by

accident). In the second case, slides were based on semantic line-splitting. For both

groups, a short test with exactly ten questions was given to the students, after each one

of ten lectures during the semester. In the case of those exposed to semantically split

lines, the test hit score, on average, was 72%. In the alternative case, it was 61%.

The next trial tested teaching in the evening hours, when the students are

relatively tired, and less able to concentrate. In this case, the advantage of semantically

split lines was much higher, with an average score of 69% versus 53% in favor of

semantic splitting. This may be treated as evidence that semantic line-splitting is more

effective, when students are less able to concentrate (through tiredness, etc).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work on this paper was supported through the Bilateral Slovenia-Serbia Scientific

Interaction project, sponsored by the ministries of science of Slovenia and Serbia (SEE-

ERA.NET, ERA-WESTBALKAN+), partially supported also by FP6 (IST-045472) and

FP7 (205494). Most of the guidelines were produced through work on PhD thesis
“Interpretation of an e-speranto in Slovenian, Serbian and Russian language” of the first

author. The authors would like to thank Peter Marlin (Oxford University, UK), Sarah

Jane Reid (Carnegie-Mellon University, USA), William Robertson (Dalhousie University,

Canada), and Tom Lincoln (University of Southern California, USA) for their comments

and insights related to this paper.

REFERENCES

(Scientific Thompson 2009) Scientific Thompson, Thompson Corporation. [Online].

Available: http://scientific.thomson.com

(Milutinovic 1996) Milutinovic, V. "The best method for presentation of research results,"

IEEE TCCA Newsletter, pp. 1–6, September 1996.

(Milutinovic 1997) Milutinovic, V. "A good method to prepare and use transparencies for

research presentations," IEEE TCCA Newsletter, pp. 72–79, March 1997.

(Cohen et al. 1982) Cohen, B. P., Kruse, R. J., Anbar, M., "The social structure of

scientific research teams," Pacific Sociological Review, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 205–232,

April 1982.

(Falkovych et al. 2006) Falkovych, K., Nack, F., “Context aware guidance for multimedia

authoring: harmonizing domain and discourse knowledge," Multimedia Systems, vol. 11,

no. 3, pp. 226–235, March 2006.

(Fowler 2002) Fowler, F. J., Survey Research Methods, Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, 2002.
(Jones 1999) Jones, S. G., “Doing Internet Research: Critical Issues and Methods for

Examining the Net, “Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1999.

(Scheurich 1997) Scheurich, J., “Research Method in the Postmodern, “London:

Routledge (UK), 1997.

(Kotz et al. 2005) Kotz, S., Read, C. B., Balakrishnan, N., Vidakovic, B., “Encyclopedia

of Statistical Sciences, “ New York: Wiley, 2005.

(Jarvinen 2000) Jarvinen, P.H., “Research questions guiding selection of an appropriate

research method," Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information

Systems, 2000, pp.124–131.

(Latchman et al. 1999) Latchman, H. A., Salzmann, Ch., Gillet, D., Bouzekri, H.,

"Information technology enhanced learning in distance and conventional education,"

IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 247–254, November 1999.

(Lee et al. 1998) Lee, E. A., Messerschmitt, D. G., "Engineering an education for the

future," IEEE Computer, pp. 77–85, January 1998.

(Turns et al. 2000) Turns,J., Atman, C. J., Adams, R., "Concept maps for engineering

education: a cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions," IEEE

Transactions on Education, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 164–173, May 2000.

(Milutinovic 2006) Milutinovic, V., "Our profession needs a reminder," IEEE Computer,

pp. 102–104, May 2006.

(Tufte 2003) E. R. Tufte, E. R., “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint, “ Cheshire: Graphic

Press, 2003.

(Doumont 2005) Doumont, J., "The cognitive style of PowerPoint: slides are not evil,"

Technical Communication, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 64–70, February 2005.

(Alley et al. 2005) Alley, M., Neeley, K. A., "Rethinking the design of presentation slides:

a case for sentence headlines and visual evidence," Society for Technical

Communication, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 417–426, November 2005.

(Farkas 2006) Farkas, D. K., "Toward a better understanding of PowerPoint deck

design," Information Design Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 162–171, 2006.

(Milutinovic et al. 2008) Milutinovic, V., Tomazic, S. “How to Ruin the Career of a PhD.

Student in Computer Science and Engineering: Precise Guidelines,” The IPSI BgD

Transactions on Internet Research, Vol 4, N0 2, July 2008, pp. 24-26. ISSN 1820 –

4503.

(Milutinovic 2005) Milutinovic, V. “Wisdom of Education for Globalization,” The IPSI BgD

Transactions on Advanced Research, Vol. 1, N0 1, January 2005, pp. 3-5., ISSN 1820 –

4511.

(Pearl 2007) Pearl, M. “Getting Good Ideas in Science and Engineering,” The IPSI

Transactions on Advanced Research, Vol. 3, N0 2, July 2007, pp. 3-7., ISSN 1820 –

4511.

(Friedman 2008) Friedman, J. “Why We Need Basic Research,” The IPSI Transaction

on Advanced Research, Vol. 4, N0 1, January 2008, pp. 2-5., ISSN 1820 – 4511.

(Wong 2008a) Wong, T.S. “How to Review or Not to Review a Paper,” Journal of

Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 134 (4).

(Wong 2008b) Wong, T.S. “How to Write an Award-Winning Paper,” Journal of

Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, ASCE, 134 (1).

(Day 1977) Day, R. A., “How to Write a Scientific Paper,” IEEE Transaction on

Professional Communication, PC 20, June 1977.

(Batchman 2008) Batchman, T., “Getting published in the IEEE Transactions on

Education, “May, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/es/batchman.html

(Omerovic et al. 2009) Omerovic, S., Tomazic, S., Milutinovic, M., Milutinovic, V. “DO’S

AND DON’T’S OF POWER POINT PRESENTATION”,

http://kondor.etf.bg.ac.yu/~vm/os/pipk/ ospipkrazno.html, May 4, 2009.

(Radivojevic et al. 2004) Radivojevic, Z., Cvetanovic, M., Milutinovic, V. "Data Mining: A

Brief Overview and Recent IPSI Research,” Annals of Mathematics, Computing &

Teleinformatics, Vol. 1, No 1, 2004, pp. 84-91.

(Milutinovic et al. 2003) Milutinovic, V., Skundric, N., Patricelli, F., Neuhold, E., 

Milutinovic, D., Bueno, A., Espinosa, E., Ramos, F., Hemmje, M., "The Computing

Professional and the Global University,” IEEE COMPUTER, May 2003.

(Rudan et al. 2005) Rudan, S., Kovacevic, A., Milutinovic, V., Milligan, C. "A Novel File

System Protection Approach, “ HICSS Proceedings, Vol. 1., No. 1., 2005.
22